[Zagadka]

The next stage of the narrative appears to be that Comey refuses to testify

"Former FBI Director James Comey has agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in an open session."

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529203801 ... -committee

[Hong Wu]

"Former FBI Director James Comey has agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in an open session."

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529203801 ... -committee

I could have been clearer, if you read my second paragraph I said that he isn't going to testify about his firing.

[Zagadka]

Fair enough, my bad

[Hong Wu]

I think I'll elaborate If Comey believes he was fired to stymie an investigation into Trump's Russian ties, he would probably talk about his firing. But if he was fired for more normal reasons, such as Trump being Trump, it would be super unprofessional for him to get up before the legislature and complain about his firing.

I think there are rumblings going on in the MSM that he is going to testify about his firing, because if it was the big deal they make it out to be, he just might. But ultimately I think he's going to avoid discussing his firing.

Another possible outcome is that he does what he has previously done, and will give a bunch of super evasive comments about his firing and the memos attributed to him, which can be taken in any direction but considering the stakes here, anything less than definitive statements should probably be taken as either there is nothing there or you won't be getting an answer from this guy. And ultimately, I think they have to start blaming the special prosecutor for things and this could well be one of those things.

[Hong Wu]

Another point I'd make here is that the FBI would probably have known well in advance if Trump was colluding with a foreign power, which is worse than (probably) anything Hillary had been doing, 33k deleted emails aside. Yet Comey still took unprecedented actions to choose Trump over Hillary. There's a lot of questions there but one conclusion that I think can be safely drawn from it is that Comey didn't think (at that time) that Trump was colluding with Russia since that would make him worse than Hillary and he chose Trump over Hillary. Getting fired after that probably stings quite a bit but I don't perceive him as being the kind of guy who is going to hold a vendetta over it, so he would only say bad things about Trump regarding the Russian collusion story if he thinks it is real and all indications are that he's going to be pretty tight-lipped as usual.

[Godstud]

Trump, whether he's guilty of collusion with Russians or not, is at the very least, guilty of obstruction.

[Igor Antunov]

Trump, whether he's guilty of collusion with Russians or not, is at the very least, guilty of obstruction.

*Anonymous sources say

[MistyTiger]

I think Comey will testify about his firing.

It is Flynn who refuses to even come into court. He has ignored the summons.

[Hong Wu]

Trump, whether he's guilty of collusion with Russians or not, is at the very least, guilty of obstruction.

So you're saying that if someone tries to investigate you repeatedly for something you didn't do, and you resist after the first investigation, you can be guilty of obstruction of justice without being guilty of the underlying charge? This is sort of like the concept of "double jeopardy", people generally expect there to be limits on how much gratuitous process a person can be forced to go through.

[mikema63]

Except trump hasn't been investigated multiple times and people aren't saying that about the investigation into him but the investigation of Flynn.

Basically if the memo that came out that Trump asked if comey could let the investigation go can be confirmed then you could make a decent case for it. Since Trump is involved in that investigation, is in a position of power over comey, fired him, and said openly that he was thinking about Russia then that case can be made.

However even if comey confirms the memo in hearings it could just come to his word against Trump's and the Republicans aren't going to turn on him until they actually become afraid of losing their seats for not doing so.

[Stormsmith]

So you're saying that if someone tries to investigate you repeatedly for something you didn't do, and you resist after the first investigation, you can be guilty of obstruction of justice without being guilty of the underlying charge? This is sort of like the concept of "double jeopardy", people generally expect there to be limits on how much gratuitous process a person can be forced to go through.

If he fired Comey to put an end to the investigation, then yes.

He may or may not be guilty of collusion, or of money laundering, or of not fully reporting income. But if he's innocent, let the investigation continue.

[Hong Wu]

I'm not going to get into this in much detail, it should suffice to say that to be guilty of obstruction of justice there has to have been something that was done wrong, the dealing of which was obstructed. Resisting people's criticisms or investigations of you can't be an obstruction of justice in of itself.

You guys might be suggesting that your opinions and the associated actions are justice. This reminds me a bit of when an SJW's self-image involves controlling people other than themselves.

America generally has rules against "unreasonable search and seizure", the idea being that you can use these things to make someone's life hell even though they are innocent.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Let assume for a second the Trump is guilty (not saying that he is, just hypothetical). If he resists investigation, then he is obstructing justice by preventing the FBI from getting the evidence. If he is not guilty, he is still obstructing justice by preventing the FBI from getting the data, despite the fact that the justice that he is obstructing would benefit him.

Either way, hampering with the investigation is an obstruction of justice.

[Hong Wu]

Let assume for a second the Trump is guilty (not saying that he is, just hypothetical). If he resists investigation, then he is obstructing justice by preventing the FBI from getting the evidence. If he is not guilty, he is still obstructing justice by preventing the FBI from getting the data, despite the fact that the justice that he is obstructing would benefit him.

Either way, hampering with the investigation is an obstruction of justice.

This made me think of another angle that hasn't been discussed. The acting FBI head (second in command) has a lot of ties to Democrats. Is there some reason that he can't continue relevant FBI investigations, in other words, is Comey strictly necessary to such investigations? I agree that firing Comey could be viewed as sending a message, but if the stakes are high enough I wouldn't expect firing one guy to do much in of itself. The FBI would have to be some real pushovers to cease investigating over a firing.

More specific as to what you wrote, if Trump is not guilty, he is not obstructing people getting data if there is no data to get.

Also, the fact that Sessions recused himself and there is a special prosecutor, people tend to gloss over the fact that you can't force the head of the DoJ to recuse himself. Appointing a special prosecutor isn't very obstruction-of-justice-like. Unless of course, the special prosecutor were to turn out to be a racist old white man after he finds nothing...

Edit: I did some research online and apparently in the United States, an innocent person can be charged with obstruction of justice. Such a terrible legal system But, getting a conviction and convincing the public to care about someone obstructing justice regarding something they were innocent of is another story. Hardcore SJWs get mad when Trump gets a second scoop of ice cream, most Americans however would not like obstruction charges against an innocent man.

Is two scoops of vanilla code for white supremacist exclusive relationships? Shouldn't the President be eating rainbow sherbert?

[MememyselfandIJK]

This made me think of another angle that hasn't been discussed. The acting FBI head (second in command) has a lot of ties to Democrats. Is there some reason that he can't continue relevant FBI investigations, in other words, is Comey strictly necessary to such investigations?

I'm never said that Comey had to lead them, but if not him who? Clearly not someone hand-picked by Trump.

I agree that firing Comey could be viewed as sending a message, but if the stakes are high enough I wouldn't expect firing one guy to do much in of itself. The FBI would have to be some real pushovers to cease investigating over a firing.

Context, context, context. Comey was fired after asking for more resources to continue the investigation.

More specific as to what you wrote, if Trump is not guilty, he is not obstructing people getting data if there is no data to get.

Lack of data is still data because it leads to an outcome. My point is if Trump is not guilty, why is he obstructing the investigation? It could be his best chance for a while to make the Dems look bad.

Also, the fact that Sessions recused himself and there is a special prosecutor, people tend to gloss over the fact that you can't force the head of the DoJ to recuse himself. Appointing a special prosecutor isn't very obstruction-of-justice-like. Unless of course, the special prosecutor were to turn out to be a racist old white man after he finds nothing...

True, appointing a special prosecutor isn't obstruction of justice, but it is quite atypical for the defendant to appoint the persecutor in the court of justice. Especially when there is already a persecutor on the case and appointing a new one would delay the administration of justice.

Edit: I did some research online and apparently in the United States, an innocent person can be charged with obstruction of justice. Such a terrible legal system But, getting a conviction and convincing the public to care about someone obstructing justice regarding something they were innocent of is another story. Hardcore SJWs get mad when Trump gets a second scoop of ice cream, most Americans however would not like obstruction charges against an innocent man. Is two scoops of vanilla code for white supremacist exclusive relationships? Shouldn't the President be eating rainbow sherbert?

Can't argue with you there, as a 3rd generation citizen, the US is downright weird (Although I myself do prefer rainbow sherbet ice cream over vanilla ).

[Drlee]

This made me think of another angle that hasn't been discussed. The acting FBI head (second in command) has a lot of ties to Democrats.

What!

He graduated from the same college as Trump. Then Harvard law.

He clerked with a Justice appointed by Reagan.

He worked for an FBI chief appointed by Bush.

He was appointed a US attorney by Bush.

He is NOT the acting attorney general. There is no acting attorney general. He is simply acting in the place of the attorney general in matters in which the attorney general has recused himself. He still works for and at the pleasure of the Attorney General appointed by Trump.

Tell us exactly what "ties to democrats" he has.

How wrong can you get?

[Stormsmith]

This made me think of another angle that hasn't been discussed. The acting FBI head (second in command) has a lot of ties to Democrats. Is there some reason that he can't continue relevant FBI investigations, in other words, is Comey strictly necessary to such investigations? I agree that firing Comey could be viewed as sending a message, but if the stakes are high enough I wouldn't expect firing one guy to do much in of itself. The FBI would have to be some real pushovers to cease investigating over a firing.

1. Comey had a 10 yr contract which was no where near ending. He hadn't done anything to warrant being fired.
2. Trump shouldnt have spoken to Comey. He should have approached the A G's office
But yes, there are doubtlessly others.

But the point is Comey was fired because he was investigating and Trump want him to stop. He as much as told Comey this, he did tell Lester Holt and he told the Russians . This is interference with an ongoing investigation. Lying about it (Rosenstien recommended it. Ahhhhh we felt Comey should be culled because he mishandled the Hillary email thing) amounts to a cover-up, also a no-no

This is exactly what brought Nixon down.

By the way it's a no-no to lie to the FBI.

More specific as to what you wrote, if Trump is not guilty, he is not obstructing peoplce getting data if there is no data to get.

Just let go forward. If he's innocent he has no worries

Also, the fact that Sessions recused himself and there is a special prosecutor, people tend to gloss over the fact that you can't force the head of the DoJ to recuse himself. Appointing a special prosecutor isn't very obstruction-of-justice-like. Unless of course, the special prosecutor were to turn out to be a racist old white man after he finds nothing...

Apparently you can force Attorney General session to recuse himself.

[blackjack21]

Context, context, context. Comey was fired after asking for more resources to continue the investigation.

That's fake news. It was already debunked by Andy McCabe (a Clintonite and acting FBI director) before Congress.

How wrong can you get?

As wrong as responding to the wrong role. He was talking about the acting director of the FBI, and you are talking about the deputy AG.

1. Comey had a 10 yr contract which was no where near ending. He hadn't done anything to warrant being fired.

He didn't have a "contract." The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president. There have been numerous calls by Democrats for him to step down after his actions preceding the election. Many Republicans felt the same way after he let Hillary off the hook when she was clearly guilty.

But the point is Comey was fired because he was investigating and Trump want him to stop. He as much as told Comey this, he did tell Lester Holt and he told the Russians . This is interference with an ongoing investigation. Lying about it (Rosenstien recommended it. Ahhhhh we felt Comey should be culled because he mishandled the Hillary email thing) amounts to a cover-up, also a no-no

That's not the sole reason by a long shot, and either way it wasn't a criminal investigation. So obstruction of justice does not apply. There has to be an active criminal investigation where Trump is a suspect. There isn't a criminal investigation, and Comey already said Trump wasn't a person of interest. The reason there is no criminal investigation is that the Democrats did not file a criminal complaint and turn the server over to the FBI. Do you understand this?

[ArtAllm]

What Karl May had to do with It?

Did you read his books?

[ArtAllm]

Oh god, don't say that aloud or our Red-Green overlords will ban the Karl May books, too!

I am surprised that this author is not called a "Racist" yet.

The book burning has already started, even Amazon bowed down to the pressure of the "thought police".

I do not use Google any more, because I often get the message, that some results are not permitted in the country I live in, a country that calls itself a "free country".

The same with Youtube.

The "Ministry of Truth" just labels anything, they do not like, as "hate speech".

In the USA they are already removing monuments of historical "Haters" and "Racists".

As we see, Communism eventually won on a global scale, but people will only wake up when millions of "Haters" and "Racists" are shipped to the new Western GULAGs, wich will be erected to protect the "freedom" from these wicked "Haters" and "Racists".